Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Order Date: 29 August 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Appellants – Kamdhenu Chemicals and Fertilizer Industries (a partnership firm) and its partners; Respondent – Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation.
- Original Suit: Plaintiff claimed Rs 16,57,250.50 for urea and DAP supplied since June 1987, seeking interest at 20% up to 19 July 1991 and 26% thereafter.
- Civil Judge Decision (27 Nov 2001): Decreed plaintiff entitled to Rs 35,42,877.27 with 18% interest on the principal; dismissed defendants’ counter‑claim of Rs 40,19,854 as barred by limitation.
- District Court (29 Oct 2025): Upheld the 2001 decree and dismissed the appeal.
- Appellants’ Grounds: (i) Error in finding they were not consignees for captive consumption; (ii) Mis‑interpretation of documents; (iii) Counter‑claim not time‑barred, alleging a continuing cause of action.
- Respondent’s Counter‑Argument: Findings of fact were clear and not open to appellate interference; defendants failed to prove captive‑consumption status or any grievance regarding unequal supply.
Court’s Reasoning
- The evidence did not support the claim that the defendants were consignees for captive consumption; the correspondence showed ordinary buyer‑seller transactions.
- No oral agreement for equal‑proportion supply was established; defendants did not raise the issue during trial and omitted a witness who could have testified to such an arrangement.
- Regarding the counter‑claim, the court held the limitation bar was proper. The stoppage of DAP supply in Feb/Mar 1989 created a discrete cause of action, not a continuing wrong, as clarified in Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan (AIR 1959 SC 798).
- The court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration; therefore, the appeal fails.
Final Outcome
- The second appeal is dismissed.
- Interim Application No. 6093 of 2026 is disposed.
- The oral application for a stay of execution of the 2001 money decree is rejected.
Topics: Civil Appeal; Fertilizer Supply Dispute